DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 14-16, 18-19, 21-23, 25-26, 28-30, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Prakash et al (USPN 2019/0031368).
Regarding claim 14, Prakash discloses a method (such as a method 700, 800 shown in figures 7-8) comprising:
detecting (by an electric filed sensor 702), on or proximate to one or more aircraft surfaces (such as aircraft nose 108, aircraft wings 110, and the tails 112), a presence of an electric field (102 shown in figure 1) above a predetermined threshold (see par. 0058, 0059); and
in response to the detection, providing a current (a strike current 600 are provided to the nose 108, the wings, 110, and the tails 112 via the trigger electrodes 408 which are attached thereto, see par. 0045, 0052) to the one or more aircraft surfaces (such as an aircraft nose, wing tips, tail).
Regarding claim 15, Prakash discloses generating, on the one or more aircraft surfaces (such as the aircraft nose, wing tips, and other locations of the aircraft 100, see par. 0045), a local varying magnetic field (a varying magnetic field at the different locations of the aircraft 100) from the current (see par. 0031, 0052).
Regarding claim 16, Prakash discloses wherein the current (the strike current 600) is provided to one or more metallic sub- surfaces (see par. 0010) coupled to the one or more aircraft surfaces.
Regarding claim 18, Prakash discloses determining (by the controller 704) whether the one or more aircraft surfaces (such as aircraft nose 108, the wings 110, and the tails 112, see figures 1, 2) are in a lightning zone, wherein the lightning zone comprises regions of the one or more aircraft surfaces that are significantly above a predetermined leader (a lightning leader 202) attachment threshold.
Regarding claim 19, Prakash discloses wherein the current (the strike current 600) is configured to be provided from a waveform generator (406) and a power source (402) (see par. 0042, 0047).
Regarding claim 21, Prakash discloses an aircraft lightning avoidance system (a system 700 shown in figure 7) comprising:
at least one processor (a controller 704) configured to execute computer readable instructions (instructions 800 of figure 8) such that the at least one processor is configured to:
receive a signal indicative of a presence of an electric field (electric field 102 from E-field sensor 702) on or proximate to one or more aircraft surfaces; and
provide, in response to the receipt of the signal, a current (a strike current leader 600 generated by the trigger electrodes 408 which are placed at the surfaces 108, 110, 112, see par. 0045, 0032) on or proximate to the one or more aircraft surfaces (such as surfaces 108, 110, 112 of the aircraft 100) (see par. 0058).
Regarding claim 22, Prakash discloses wherein the at least one processor (704) is further configured to: generate, on or proximate to the one or more aircraft surfaces (such as the aircraft nose 108, wing tips 110, and other locations 112 of the aircraft 100, see par. 0045), a local varying magnetic field from the current (a varying magnetic field at the different locations of the aircraft 100) from the current (see par. 0031, 0052).
Regarding claim 23, Prakash discloses wherein the current (the strike current 600) is provided to one or more metallic sub- surfaces (see par. 0010) coupled to the one or more aircraft surfaces.
Regarding claims 25, 32, Prakash wherein the at least one processor (704) is further configured to: determine whether the one or more aircraft surfaces (108, 110, 112) are in a lightning zone (lightning zones such as an aircraft nose 108, the aircraft wings 110, and the tails 112, see figure 1) , wherein the lightning zone comprises regions of the one or more aircraft surfaces that are significantly above a predetermined leader (such as a lightning leader 202) attachment threshold.
Regarding claim 26, Prakash discloses wherein the current (the strike current 600) is configured to be provided from a waveform generator (406) and a power source (402) (see par. 0042, 0047).
Regarding claim 28, Prakash discloses an aircraft having an aircraft lightning avoidance system (a system 700, figures 1, 7) comprising:
an aircraft body (an aircraft body 100); and
at least one processor (a controller 704) coupled to the aircraft body configured to execute computer readable instructions (such as instructions 8000, figure 8) such that the at least one processor is configured to: receive a signal (from E-field sensor 702) indicative of a presence of an electric field (electric field 102)on or proximate to one or more aircraft surfaces (108, 110, 112); and
provide, in response to the receipt of the signal, a current (a strike current leader 600 generated by the trigger electrodes 408 which are placed at the surfaces 108, 110, 112, see par. 0045, 0032) on or proximate to the one or more aircraft surfaces (such as surfaces 108, 110, 112 of the aircraft 100) (see par. 0058).
Regarding claim 29, Prakash discloses wherein the at least one processor (704) is further configured to: generate, on or proximate to the one or more aircraft surfaces (such as the aircraft nose 108, wing tips 110, and other locations 112 of the aircraft 100, see par. 0045), a local varying magnetic field from the current (a varying magnetic field at the different locations of the aircraft 100) from the current (see par. 0031, 0052).
Regarding claim 30, Prakash discloses wherein the current (the strike current 600) is provided to one or more metallic sub- surfaces (see par. 0010) coupled to the one or more aircraft surfaces.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 20, 27, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al (USPN 2019/0031368) in view of Volkenau et al (USPN 3,883,774).
Regarding claims 20, 21, 33, Prakash discloses the trigger electrodes (408) generates the strike leader (600) which includes a large current value, but does not explicitly disclose the current between a range as claimed.
Volkenau discloses a lightning voltage protection comprises a current generator (trigger electrodes of a spark gap) configured to generate a high current between 150 amps and 400 amps (see col. 2, lines 21-23).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the current range of Prakash to incorporate a current range as disclosed by Volkenau to ensure a lightning strike can be rounted away from a structure without causing damage.
3. Claims 17, 24, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al (USPN 2019/0031368) in view of Jones et al (USPN 2018/0232746).
Regarding claim 17, Prakash discloses the one or more sensors (the E-field sensors 702, see figure 7) coupled to the one or more aircraft surfaces (108, 110, 112, see figure 1), but does not explicitly disclose the sensors comprises electroscope as claimed.
Jones discloses a static electricity sensing apparatus comprises a plurality of electric field sensors (12) comprises electroscope (see par. 0036, and figure 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the electric field sensors of Prakash to incorporate electroscopes as disclosed by Jones to provide a simple and effective tool for detecting and indicating electric charge.
Regarding claims 24, 31, Prakash discloses one or more sensors (E-field sensor 702, figure 7) coupled to the one or more aircraft surfaces (108, 110, 112), wherein the one or more sensors (702) are configured to detect the presence of the electric field (102) on or proximate to the one or more aircraft surfaces (108, 110, 112) and to transmit the signal indicative of the presence of the electric field on or proximate to the one or more aircraft surfaces (see par. 0059), but does not explicitly disclose the sensors comprises electroscope as claimed.
Jones discloses a static electricity sensing apparatus comprises a plurality of electric field sensors (12) comprises electroscope (see par. 0036, and figure 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the electric field sensors of Prakash to incorporate electroscopes as disclosed by Jones to provide a simple and effective tool for detecting and indicating electric charge.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2054. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-271-1838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANNY NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights